DHARMENDRA KUMAR vs STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY

2026:JHHC:32332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 4787 of 2025
1. Sudama Paswan, S/o- Chalitar Ram, aged about 48 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Naudiha Bazar, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
2. Vishnupat Kumar, S/o- Rampravesh Ram, aged about 40 Years, R/o
Vill.- Bara, P.O.+P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
3. Kamlesh Paswan, S/o- Chandra Deo Paswan, aged about 41 Years, R/o
Vill.- Bara, P.O.+P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
4. Sunil Kumar Niraj, S/o- Mangresh Ram, aged about 49 Years, R/o Vill.-
Bara, P.O.+P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
5. Shivnath Thakur, S/o- Rampravesh Thakur, aged about 48 Years, R/o
Vill.- Saraidih, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
6. Sanjay Vishwakarma, S/o- Dukhan Vishwakarma, aged about 38 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O.- Shahpur, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
7. Santosh Rajak, S/o- Saryu Rajak, aged about 38 Years, R/o Vill.+P.O.-
Shahpur, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
8. Chandan Kumar, S/o- Vijay Prasad, aged about 38 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Shahpur, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
9. Santosh Kumar, S/o- Ramjanam Sav, aged about 44 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
10. Anupa Kumari, D/o- Ram Prasad Sahu, aged about 37 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
11. Upendra Kumar Gupta, S/o- Ramnarayan Prasad Gupta, aged about
50 Years, R/o Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
11. Pradip Kumar, S/o- Rambilash Prasad, aged about 50 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
13. Ramu Kumar, S/o- Sudama Prasad, aged about 39 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
14. Pooja Kumari, D/o- Rajeshwar Pd. Gupta, aged about 37 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
15. Laxmini Kumari, D/o- Jitan Paswan, aged about 42 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
16. Om Prakash, S/o- Shiv Shankar Vishwakarma, aged about 57 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
17. Nurul Hoda, S/o- Shahban Miyan, aged about 44 Years, R/o Vill.+P.O.-
Shahpur, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
18. Rajendra Prasad, S/o- Laxman Saw, aged about 59 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
19. Sumitra Devi, D/o- Shatrudhan Prasad, aged about 58 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
20. Sabnam Khatun, D/o- Abdul Samad Ansari, aged about 32 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Shahpur, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
21. Navnehal Ansari, S/o- Abdul Samad Ansari, aged about 32 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Shahpur, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
22. Naresh Uranw, S/o- Mohar Uranw, aged about 40 Years, R/o Vill.-
Nawadih, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
23. Amit Kumar, S/o- Harihar Saw, aged about 42 Years, R/o Vill.+P.O.-
Saraidih, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
1

2026:JHHC:32332
24. Anil Kumar Singh, S/o- Ramswarup Prasad Mahatm, aged about 59
Years, R/o Vill.- Pokhraha, P.O.- Gulabjhari, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu.
25. Yogendra Kumar, S/o- Raj Kishor Singh, aged about 43 Years, R/o
Vill.- Chuchru, P.O.- Gulabjhari, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
26. Sitaram Ram, S/o- Indra Deo Ram, aged about 45 Years, R/o Vill.-
Jawar, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
27. Surendra Prasad Sharma, S/o- Gopal Prasad Sharma, aged about 51
Years, R/o Vill.+P.O.- Nawatar, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
28. Sangita Kumari, D/o- Prayag Prasad, aged about 46 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.+P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
29. Usha Kumari, W/o- Birendra Prajapati, aged about 35 Years, R/o Vill.-
Madhya, P.O.+P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
30. Anil Kumar Singh, S/o- Tapeshwar Prasad Singh, aged about 36 Years,
R/o Vill.- Nawadih, P.O.+P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
…… Petitioners
V E R S U S
1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School
Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O
and P.S Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, officiating from his office at O/o
Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate Building, Medninagar, P.O and P.S
Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
3. The District Education Officer, Palamu, officiating from his office at
Collectorate Building, Medninagar, P.O and P.S Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
4. The Block Extension Officer-cum-Coordinator, Naudiha Bazar, having
his office at Naudiha Bazar, P.O and P.S Naudiha Bazar, Dist-Palamu.
5. Jharkhand Education Project Council, State Project Office, Officiating
from - Old HEC High School, JSCA Stadium Road, Sector - 3, P.O. & P.S.
- Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi
6. District Superintendent of Education-cum-under District Programme
Officer, SSA, JEPC, Palamu, Office at - Collectorate Building,
Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District - Palamu, Jharkhand
…… Respondents
with
W.P (S) No. 4785 of 2025

1. Dharmendra Kumar S/o- Vishwanath Prasad Baitha Aged About - 49
Years R/O Vill.- Bara P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
Jharkhand.
2. Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o- Upendranath Yadav Aged About - 40 Years
R/O Vill.- Nawadih P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
3. Santosh Kumar S/o- Ramlagan Prasad Aged About - 49 Years R/O Vill.-
Risiyapa, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
4. Sushma Kumari D/o-Dindayal Prasad Aged About - 40 Years R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Dagra P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
5. Awdhesh Kumar S/o-Aaditya Saw, Aged About - 38 Years R/o Vill.-
Harina, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
2

2026:JHHC:32332
6. Md. Nure Alam S/o- Md Islam Aged About - 42 Years R/O Vill.- Teli
yadih, P.O - Namudag, P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
7. Sudhir Kumar S/o-Kedar Paswan, Aged About - 42 Years R/O
Vill.+P.O.- Namudag, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
Jharkhand.
8. Anuj Kr. Singh, S/o-Lalindra Kumar Singh, Aged About - 46 Years R/O
Vill. +P.O.- Namudag P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
9. Lalan Prasad, S/o- Puran Ram Aged About - 56 Years R/O Vill.-
Shahpur, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
10. Umesh Baitha, S/o- Rambilash Ram, Aged About - 54 Years R/O Vill.-
Rabda, P.O.- Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
11. Ghanshyam Kumar, S/o-Prahlad Ram, Aged About - 46 Years, R/O
Vill.+P.O.- Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
12. Shahansha Alam, S/o-Md. Yusuf Ansari, Aged About - 38 Years, R/O
Vill.+P.O. Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
13. Sangeeta Gupta, S/o- Gaya Prasad, Aged About - 49 Years, R/O Vill.-
Risiyapa, P.O.+P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
14. Prawesh Ram, S/o- Gobind Ram, Aged About - 43 Years, R/O Vill.-
Nawatanad Dhobani, P.O.+ P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
Jharkhand.
15. Sanjeet Kumar, S/o- Swarup Choudhari, Aged About - 39 Years, R/O
Vill.+P.O.- Namudag P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
16. Pushpa Kumari, D/o- Chandan Prasad, Aged About - 40 Years, R/O
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
17. Mithilesh Kumar Ravi, S/o- Nand Deo Ram, Aged About - 54 Years
R/O Vill.- Harina, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
18. Vijay Kumar Saw, S/o-Lalu Saw Aged About - 40 Years, R/O Vill.-
Shahpur, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
19. Suchit Kumar, S/o- Bhola Saw, Aged About - 45 Years, R/O Vill.+P.O.-
Shahpur, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, ...Petitioner
…… Petitioners
V E R S U S
1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School
Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O
and P.S Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, officiating from his office at O/o
Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate Building, Medninagar, P.O and P.S
Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
3.The District Education Officer, Palamu, officiating from his office at
Collectorate Building, Medninagar, P.O and P.S Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
4.The Block Extension Officer-cum-Coordinator, Chhattarpur Block,
having his office at Chhattarpur, P.O and P.S Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
5.Jharkhand Education Project Council, State Project Office, Officiating
from - Old HEC High School, JSCA Stadium Road, Sector - 3, P.O. &
P.S. - Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi.
6.District Superintendent of Education-cum-under District Programme
Officer, SSA, JEPC, Palamu, Office at - Collectorate Building,
3

2026:JHHC:32332
Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District - Palamu, Jharkhand
…… Respondents
with
W.P (S) No. 4915 of 2025
1. Abhishek Kumar, S/o- Dwarika Prasad, Aged About - 39 Years, R/o
Vill.- Nawatand, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
2. Mithilesh Kumar Yadav, S/o- Ganauri Yadav, Aged About - 36 Years,
R/o Vill.- Jamua Bisunpur, P.O.- Bisunpur, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu,
3. Arun Kumar Vishwakarma, S/o- Ram Sundar Vishwakarma, Aged
About - 39 Years, R/o Vill.- Nima, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu,
4. Kuldip Kumar Yadav, S/o- Kishun Yadav, Aged About - 35 Years, R/o
Vill.- Goreyathan, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
5. Binay Kumar Yadav, S/o- Jagdish Yadav, Aged About - 38 Years, R/o
Vill.- Goreyathan, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar,
6. Nikhil Ranjan, S/o- Manohar Yadav, Aged About - 42 Years, R/o Vill.-
Nawatand, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
7. Birendra Kumar Sharma, S/o- Tapeshwar Sharma, Aged About - 37
Years, R/o Vill.- Saraidih Tola Raghunidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu,
8. Anuj Kumar, S/o- L.T. Kedar Singh, Aged About - 45 Years, R/o Vill.-
Bishunpur, P.O.- Bishunpur, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
9. Manoj Yadav, S/o- Yadu Yadav, Aged About - 35 Years, R/o Vill.- Shilda
Kala, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
10. Manoj Rajak, S/o- Rampati Rajak, Aged About - 39 Year, R/o Vill.-
Shild Khurd, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
11. Nandu Ram, S/o- Bishun Rajak, Aged About - 45 Years, R/o Vill.-
Taridih, P.O.- Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
12. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, S/o- Gopal Singh, Aged About - 51 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Naumdag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
13. Bhola Prasad Gupta, S/o- Ram Prasad Saw, Aged About - 50 Years,
R/o Vill.- Bara, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
14. Santosh Kumar Pathak, S/o- Satnarayan Pathak, Aged About - 48
Years, R/o Vill.- Neema, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
Jharkhand
15. Vikash Prasad Gupta, S/o- Girija Prasad Gupta, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Vill.- Gansa, P.O.- Dagra, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
16. Bajrangi Prasad Gupta, S/o- Vishwanath Prasad Gupta, Aged About -
35 Years, R/o Vill.- Sahiyar, P.O.- Dagra, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu,
17. Krishna Prasad, S/o- Harihar Saw, Aged About - 55 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
18. Sunita Puspadha, D/o- Brajesh Kumar, Aged About - 52 Years, R/o
Vill.- Rabda, P.O.- Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
19. Parmeshwar Ram, S/o- Kailash Ram, Aged About - 54 Years, R/o Vill.-
Nawatand, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
4

2026:JHHC:32332
20. Guddu Prasad Yadav, S/o- Ram Dahin Yadav, Aged About - 35 Years,
R/o Vill.- Lakrahi, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
21. Nagendra Kumar Yadav, S/o- Sudeshwar Yadav, Aged About - 38
Years, R/o Vill.- Silda Khurd, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar,
Dist.- Palamu,
22. Raj Kishor Kumar, S/o- Madan Prasad, Aged About - 43 Years, R/o
Vill.- Shipur, P.O.- Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
23. Saddam Hussain, S/o- Md. Islam Ansari, Aged About - 35 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
24. Satyendar Prasad, S/o- Jagdish Prasad, Aged About - 43 Years, R/o
Vill.- Singhana, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
25. Tarun Kumar Yadav, S/o- Yugeshwar Yadav, Aged About - 39 Years,
R/o Vill.- Naudiha, P.O.- Naudiha Khajuri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.-
Palamu,
26. Suresh Yadav, S/o- Prasad Yadav, Aged About - 49 Years, R/o Vill.-
Ratnag, P.O.- Dagara, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
27. Md. Alauddin, S/o- Abdul Sakur, Aged About - 57 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Shahpur, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
28. Mithilesh Kumar, S/o- Suresh Saw, Aged About - 57 Years, R/o Vill.-
Shahpur, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
29. Rajkumar Yadav, S/o- Bhola Yadav, Aged About - 45 Years, R/o Vill.-
Gosaidih, P.O.- Udaigarh, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu,
30. Prema Kumari, S/o- Janki Saw, Aged About - 39 Years, R/o Vill.- Silda
Khurd, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
31. Ranjit Kumar, S/o- Mahabir Saw, Aged About - 44 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
32. Vishwanath Yadav, S/o- Kameshwar Yadav, Aged About - 44 Years,
R/o Vill.- Khardiha, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
33. Bishwanath Kumar, S/o- Nirmal Ram, Aged About - 53 Years, R/o
Vill.- Karkata, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
34. Shamshad Alam, S/o- Reyazudin Ansari, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
35. Anil Ram, S/o- Bhikhar Ram, Aged About - 38 Years, R/o Vill.-
Shahpur, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
36. Arjunjay Kumar Singh, S/o- Sudheshwar Singh, Aged About - 40
Years, R/o Vill.- Kuhkuh, P.O. + P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu
37. Dilmohammad Ansari, S/o- Mohammad Ansari, Aged About - 35
Years, R/o Vill.- Machawadohar, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar,
Dist.- Palamu,
38. Saryu Prasad, S/o- Kesho Saw, Aged About - 45 Years, R/o Vill.-
Rishiyapa, P.O.+P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
39. Kamta Prasad, S/o- Jayshree Prasad, Aged About - 55 Years, R/o Vill.-
Harni, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
40. Ravindra Kumar Yadav, S/o- Dhaneshwar Yadav, Aged About - 43
Years, R/o Vill.+P.O.- Dagra, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
41. Naresh Saw, S/o- Saryu Saw, Aged About - 47 Years, R/o Vill.+P.O.-
Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
5

2026:JHHC:32332
42. Binod Vishwakarma, S/o- Munshi Vishwakarma, Aged About - 43
Years, R/o Vill.- Shahpur, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu,
43. Ravindra Rajak, S/o- Kapildeo Rajak, Aged About - 39 Years, R/o
Vill.- Shahpur, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
44. Sarita Kumari, D/O- Rajeshwar Singh, Aged About - 51 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
45. Birbal Prasad, S/o- Jaged Shwar Saw, Aged About - 47 Years, R/o
Vill.- Shilda Khurd, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu,
46. Pintu Kumar, S/o- Rajendra Paswan, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o Vill.-
Shahpur, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
47. Rakesh Kumar Yadav, S/o- Raj Kumar Yadav, Aged About - 37 Years,
R/o Vill.- Goreyathan, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu,
48. Shiwdhyan Singh, S/o- Rupnarayan Singh, Aged About - 52 Years, R/o
Vill.- Taridih, P.O.- Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
49. Manoj Kumar, S/o- Nandkishor Prasad, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o
Vill.- Taridih, P.O.- Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
50. Dharmendra Kr. Patel, S/o- Kameshwar Singh, Aged About - 39 Years,
R/o Vill.- Taridih, P.O.- Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
51. Saryu Thakur, S/o- Chandradeo Thakur, Aged About - 57 Years, R/o
Vill.- Dumri, P.O.- Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
52. Ram Bilash Yadav, S/o- Bineshwar Yadav, Aged About - 42 Years, R/o
Vill.- Bhitiharwa (Lalgara), P.O.+P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
53. Shambhu Yadav, S/o- Padarath Yadav, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o
Vill.- Kawal, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
54. Ravindra Singh, S/o- Ram Lakhan Singh, Aged About - 40 Years, R/o
Vill.- Salaiya Khurd, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu,
55. Awadh Kishor Singh, S/o- Mithilesh Singh, Aged About - 40 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O.- Bishunpur, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
56. Rahul Ranjan, S/o- Birendra Prasad Singh, Aged About - 40 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Udaygarh, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
57. Bibha Devi, D/O- Ram Lakhan Singh, Aged About - 38 Years, R/o
Vill.- Gorho, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
Jharkhand
58. Bashith Kumar Yadav, S/o- Rambiriksh Yadav, Aged About - 36 Years,
R/o Vill.- Shilda Khurd, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu, Jharkhand
59. Mithlesh Yadav, S/o- Vishundev Yadav, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o
Vill.- Goreyathan, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
60. Sarita Kumari, D/O- Rameshwar Chaudhary, Aged About - 41 Years,
R/o Vill.- Bishunpur (Habarua), P.O. And P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu,
61. Vinay Kumar Shah, S/o- Bharat Prasad Singh, Aged About - 52 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O.- Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
6

2026:JHHC:32332
62. Surajmal Kumar Gupta, S/o- Vishwanath Prasad Gupta, Aged About -
38 Years, R/o Vill.+P.O.- Dagra, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
63. Dimpal Kumari, D/O- Nathuni Prasad Gupta, Aged About - 34 Years,
R/o Vill.- Nawatand, P.O.+P.S.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
64. Mukesh Kumar, S/o- Parmeshwar Pd. Gupta, Aged About - 43 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
65. Sabita Kumar, D/O- Radheshyam Prasad, Aged About - 42 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
66. Santosh Kumar Singh, S/o- Parshuram Singh, Aged About - 38 Years,
R/o Vill.- Korami, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
67. Santosh Kumar, S/o- Dharmdeo Rajak, Aged About - 39 Years, R/o
Vill.- Nawatand, Tandipar, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
68. Dilip Kumar Singh, S/o- Kailash Prasad Singh, Aged About - 55 Years,
R/o Vill.- Mayapur, P.O.- Solabhjhari, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
Jharkhand
69. Manoj Kumar, S/o- Balmukund Prajapati, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o
Vill.- Kawal, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
70. Premlata Kumari, D/O- Gariban Das, Aged About - 43 Years, R/o Vill.-
Harina, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
71. Arvind Kumar Das, S/o- Salik Das, Aged About - 49 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
72. Shiv Yadav, S/o- Ramdeo Yadav, Aged About - 40 Years, R/o Vill.-
Birhordih, P.O.- Saraidih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
73. Ranjeet Kumar Gupta, S/o- Ram Birichh Prasad Gupta, Aged About -
37 Years, R/o Vill.- Nawatand, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
74. Raju Kumar Yadav, S/o- Shree Yadav, Aged About - 39 Years, R/o
Vill.- Nima, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
75. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, S/o- Tilak Prasad Gupta, Aged About - 40
Years, R/o Vill.- Nawatand, P.O.+ P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist. Palamu,
76. Shivnath Vishwakarma, S/o- Murli Vishwakarma, Aged About - 41
Years, R/o Vill.- Nima, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
77. Punam Kumari, W/O- Anup Kumar Singh, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o
Vill.- Nawatand, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
78. Manoj Kumar Gupta, S/o- Nandkishor Prasad Gupta, Aged About - 48
Years, R/o Vill.- Nawatand, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
79. Vijay Kumar Singh, S/o- Late Ram Khelawan Singh, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Vill.- Dumari, P.O.- Taridih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu, Jharkhand
80. Vijay Kumar Mehta, S/o- Shyam Bihari Mahto, Aged About - 45
Years, R/o Vill.- Taridih, P.O.- Taridih, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu, Jharkhand
81. Arun Kumar, S/o- Amaresh Prasad Mehta, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Vill.- Taridih, P.O.- Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
82. Ashok Kumar Gupta, S/o- Tilak Prasad Gupta, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Vill.- Nawatand, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand
83. Ashok Kumar Yadav, S/o- Rajdeo Yadav, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o
Vill.- Shilda Khurd, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu, Jharkhand
7

2026:JHHC:32332
84. Vijay Kumar Yadav, S/o- Muneshwar Yadav, Aged About - 37 Years,
R/o Vill.- Shilda Khurd, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu, Jharkhand
85. Sikendra Ram, S/o- Indra Deo Ram, Aged About - 40 Years, R/o Vill.-
Shilda Khurd, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
Jharkhand
86. Bhim Singh, S/o- Suryapati Singh, Aged About - 47 Years, R/o Vill.-
Shilda Khurd, P.O.- Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
87. Pramod Kumar, S/o- Mahendra Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Village- Singha, P.O. and P.S. Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu
…… Petitioners
V E R S U S
1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School
Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O
and P.S Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, officiating from his office at O/o
Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate Building, Medninagar, P.O and P.S
Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
3. The District Education Officer, Palamu, officiating from his office at
Collectorate Building, Medninagar, P.O and P.S Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
4. The Block Extension Officer-cum-Coordinator, Naudiha Bazar, having
his office at Naudiha Bazar, P.O and P.S Naudiha Bazar, Dist-Palamu.
5. Jharkhand Education Project Council, State Project Office, Officiating
from - Old HEC High School, JSCA Stadium Road, Sector - 3, P.O. & P.S.
- Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi
6. District Superintendent of Education-cum-under District Programme
Officer, SSA, JEPC, Palamu, Office at - Collectorate Building,
Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District - Palamu, Jharkhand
…… Respondents
with
W.P (S) No. 4917 of 2025
1. Basant Kumar, S/o- Chandrdeep Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village- Madanpur, P.S.+Ρ.Ο.- Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu,
2. Santosh Kumar Singh, S/o- Ganesh Singh, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o
Vill.-Sildag, P.O.+P.S.- Chhatarpur, , Dist.- Palamu
3. Akhilesh Ram, S/o- Chandradeo Ram, Aged About 49, R/o Vill.-Supha,
P.O.- Jhargara, P.S. Hussainabad, Dist.- Palamu,
4. Shambhu Yadav, S/o-Yugeshwar Yadav, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Vill.- Sushiganj, P.O.-Latheya, P.S. - Chhatarpur Dist.- Palamu,
5. Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, S/o-Shivnath Prasad, Aged About 37 years, R/o
Vill. + P.O And P.S. Chhatarpur, Dist.-Palamu.
6. Manoj Kumar Yadav, S/o- Krit Yadav, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Vill.
Sushiganj, P.O. Latheya, P.S. Chhatarpurr, Dist.- Palamu,
7. Madhu Kumari, D/o-Rama Shankar Paswan, 42 Years, R/o Vill.
Sushiganj, P.O And P.S Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu,
8. Sunil Kumar, aged about 55 years S/o- Surendra Nath Gupta, R/o
Village Manugain Ρ.Ο.-Chhatarpur, P.S. Chhatarpur Dist.- Palamu,
8

2026:JHHC:32332
9. Shambhu Prasad, S/o- Dukhan Saw, Aged About 51 Years,, R/o Vill.-
Sushiganj, P.O.- Latheya, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu,
10. Santosh Prasad, S/o-Balabhadra Prasad, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Telari, P.S. Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu,
11. Binay Kumar Yadav, S/o- Yugal Yadav, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.-Telari, P.S.- Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu,
12. Anuj Kumar Thakur, S/o- Lallu Thakur, Aged About- 37 Years, Vill.-
Sildag, P.O.+P.S.- Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu,
13. Vinod Singh, S/o- Haridas Singh, Aged About- 56 Years, R/o Vill.-
P.O.+P.S.- Choukhada, Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu,
14. Sosan Kachhap, D/O- Bharosa Kachhap, Aged About- 43 Years, R/o
Vill. Kurkuta P.O.- Telari, P.S. Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu
15. Ram Rakshya Singh, S/o-Jagdish Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
Vill. - Baghamara, P.O.-Naudiha Khajuri, P.S. Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu,
16. Geeta Kumari, D/O- Mundrika Chamar, Aged About- 38 Years,
Kauwal Tola R/o Vill.+P.O.-Mahulaniya, P.S. Chhatarpur Dist.- Palamu,
17. Umesh Kumar Mishra, S/o- Raj Kumar Mishra, Aged About 53 Year
R/o Vill.- Khaitin P.O.+P.S.- Chhatarpur, Dist.-Palamu,
18. Satyendra Kumar Singh, S/o-Late Ramdas Singh, Aged About-58
Years, R/o Vill.- Nimiya, P.O.-Dulhi, P.S.- Patan, Dist.- Palamu,
19. Sushil Kumar, S/o- Ramautar Singh, Aged About- 44 Years. R/o Vill.-
Babhandi, P.O. Latheya, P.S.-Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu,
20. Akhilesh Kumar, S/o-Muneshwar Manjhi, Aged About - 43 Years, R/o
Village- Dali, P.Ο.-Dali, P.S.- Chhatarpur, Dist.-Palamu,
21. Md Irfan Ali, S/o- Md Alisher Ahmad, Aged About 39, R/o Vill.-
Khendra Kala, P.O. And P.S -Naudiha Kajuri, Dist.- Palamu,
22. Mithilesh Kumar Yadav, S/o-Rajkishore Yadab, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o Vill. Arar, P.O.-Khodhi, P.S.- Chhatarpur, Dist.-Palamu,
23. Kanchan Kumari, W/O- Ranjit Kumar Gupta, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Vill. Rudwa, Р.О.-Telari, P.S.- Chhatarpur, Dist.-Palamu,
24. Ramabadan Singh, S/o-Mukhdev Singh, Aged About - 59 Years, R/o
Vill. - Kauwal, P.O. And P.S - Telari, Dist.- Palamu, …… Petitioners
V E R S U S
1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School
Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O
and P.S Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, officiating from his office at O/o
Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate Building, Medninagar, P.O and P.S
Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
3. The District Education Officer, Palamu, officiating from his office at
Collectorate Building, Medninagar, P.O and P.S Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
4. The Block Extension Officer-cum-Coordinator, Chhattarpur, having his
office at Chhattarpur, P.O and P.S Chhattarpur, Dist-Palamu.
5. Jharkhand Education Project Council, State Project Office, Officiating
from - Old HEC High School, JSCA Stadium Road, Sector - 3, P.O. & P.S.
- Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi
6. District Superintendent of Education-cum-under District Programme
Officer, SSA, JEPC, Palamu, Office at - Collectorate Building,
9

2026:JHHC:32332
Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District - Palamu, Jharkhand
…… Respondents
with
W.P (S) No. 5080 of 2025
1. Sudama Prasad Rajak, S/o- Kardhani Baitha, Aged About - 50 Years,
R/o Vill.- Nawatand, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
2. Pramod Kumar, S/o- Yadunandan Mali, Aged About - 40 Years, R/o
Vill.- Mahipata, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu.
3. Md Eqbal, S/o- Abdur Razzaque, Aged About - 45 Years, R/o Vill.-
Marwa Tola Kajaroo, P.O. and P.S. - Udaygarh, Dist.- Palamu.
4. Binod Kumar Singh, S/o- Ram Dheyan Singh, Aged About - 55 Years,
R/o Vill.- Pokhraha, P.O. and P.S. - Gulabjhari, Dist.- Palamu.
5. Rajendra Kumar Raman, S/o- Shiv Bhajan Ram, Aged About - 50 Years,
R/o Vill.- Bara, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand.
6. Ramanand Mishra, S/o- Sachidand Mishra, Aged About - 46 Years, R/o
Vill.- Khatin, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
7. Sachin Kumar Pandey, S/o- Baikunth Nath Pandey, Aged About - 43
Years, R/o Vill.- Chiran, P.O. - Munkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu,
Jharkhand.
8. Dilip Prasad, S/o- Suresh Prasad, Aged About - 38 Years, R/o Vill.-
Sahaydih, P.O. - Manjholi, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
9. Dharmendra Kumar, S/o- Surendra Pd. Thakur, Aged About - 39 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O. - Kauwal, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
10. Nilam Kumari, S/o- Tarkeshwar Sharma, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Kauwal, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
11. Shriram Choudhary, S/o- Binayak Ram, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Kauwal, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
12. Kumari Urmila, D/o- Ram Rakshya Ram, Aged About - 54 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Kauwal, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
13. Upedendra Kumar, S/o- Vishanudev Saw, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o
Vill.- Khaitin, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
14. Sunita Kumari, W/o- Murari Prasad Singh, Aged About - 45 Years,
R/o Vill.- Khardiha, P.O. - Sairediha, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist.- Palamu,
Jharkhand.
15. Umesh Ram, S/o- Ram Prasad Ram, Aged About - 40 Years, R/o Vill.-
Madanpur, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
16. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, S/o- Sudarshan Pd. Gupta, Aged About - 36
Years, R/o Vill.+P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
17. Jaiyanti Kumari, S/o- Chhathu Saw, Aged About - 39 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Khodhi, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
18. Baijyanti Sharma, W/o- Suresh Vishwakarma, Aged About - 52 Years,
R/o Vill.- Thekani, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
19. Surendra Goswami, S/o- Jeetu Goswami, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
20. Santosh Kumar Das, S/o- Nirmal Das, Aged About - 46 Years, R/o
Vill.- Bari, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
21. Sunil Kumar Yadav, S/o- Udheswhar Yadav, Aged About - 37 Years,
R/o Vill.- Tilharwa, P.O. - Chaparbar, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
10

2026:JHHC:32332
22. Ajeet Kumar, S/o- Bhola Mistri, Aged About - 40 Years, R/o Vill.-
Manhu, P.O. - Munkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
23. Arun Kumar Ram, S/o- Satyanarayan Ram, Aged About - 54 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
24. Vijay Ram, S/o- Basudev Ram, Aged About - 48 Years, R/o Vill.-
Vishaypur, P.O. and P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
25. Niranjan Kumar, S/o- Shambhu Saran Singh, Aged About - 51 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
26. Sashilata Devi, D/o- Gupteshwar Singh, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
27. Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o- Ram Pravesh Singh, Aged About - 45 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
28. Amod Kumar Sharma, S/o- Suryadev Mistri, Aged About - 32 Years,
R/o Vill.- Manhu, P.O. - Munkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
29. Niranjan Kumar Pathak, S/o- Umapati Pathak, Aged About - 43 Years,
R/o Vill.- Lewad, P.O. and P.S. - Naudiha Khajuri, Chhatarpur, Dist.-
Palamu.
30. Umesh Kumar, S/o- Shyam Sundar Ram, Aged About - 45 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Naudiha, P.S. - Khajuri, Dist.- Palamu.
31. Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav, S/o- Dhul Yadav, Aged About - 57 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Naudiha Khajuri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
32. Rajendra Kumar Ravi, S/o- Ramrup Ram, Aged About - 38 Years, R/o
Vill.- Tempo, P.O. - Munkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
33. Sarita Kumari, W/o- Basan Kumar Vishwakarma, Aged About - 35
Years, R/o Vill.- Mamhu, P.O. - Mumkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.-
Palamu.
34. Janakdeo Yadav, S/o- Harish Chandra Yadav, Aged About - 37 Years,
R/o Vill.- Mamhu, P.O. - Mumkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
35. Shiv Shankar Ram, S/o- Girwar, Aged About - 49 Years, R/o Vill.-
Kachanpur, P.O. and P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
36. Md Raza Kadari, S/o- Md Sarfuddin, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o Vill.-
Chiru, P.O. - Mumkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
37. Aradhna Kumari, D/o- Bhardul Manjhi, Aged About - 39 Years, R/o
Vill.- Chiru, P.O. - Mumkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
38. Vinay Kumar, S/o- Rajdeo Paswan, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o Vill.-
Chiru, P.O. - Mumkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
39. Pramod Ram, S/o- Bhagi Rathi Ram, Aged About - 52 Years, R/o Vill.-
Chiru, P.O. - Mumkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
40. Asant Paswan, S/o- Pukaru Paswan, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o Vill.-
Chiru, P.O. - Mumkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
41. Upendra Kumar Paswan, S/o- Bhikhar Paswan, Aged About - 40
Years, R/o Vill.- Kachampur, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
42. Dilip Kumar Gupta, S/o- Ram Chandra Prasad, Aged About - 37 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O. - Kamacharai, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu.
43. Ferdinand Kumar, S/o- Jagu Ram, aged about - 41 years, R/o
Vill.+P.O.- Dali,, P.S.- Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu. (Deleted vide order
dated 17.02.2026)
11

2026:JHHC:32332
44. Khurshid Alam, S/o- Md Ismail Ansari, Aged About - 48 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
45. Satyendra Ram, S/o- Jagdish Ram, Aged About - 43 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
46. Ramesh Ram, S/o- Rampati Ram, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o Vill.-
Mamhu, P.O. - Mumkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
47. Manoj Kumar Gupta, S/o- Bhola Prasad Sahu, Aged About - 52 Years,
R/o Vill.- Nawa Bazar, P.O.+P.S. - Nawa Bazar, Dist. - Palamu.
48. Rabina Khatun, S/o- Ismail Miyan, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
49. Shrawan Kumar, S/o- Yamuna Prasad, Aged About - 49 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
50. Ashish Kumar Jayswal, S/o- Vishwanath Prasad Jayswal, Aged About
- 39 Years, R/o Vill.- Arar, P.O. - Khadi, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
51. Shambhu Kumar Yadav, S/o- Devki Yadav, Aged About - 35 Years,
R/o Vill.- Murumdag, P.O. - Murumdag, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
52. Dinesh Ram, S/o- Chandu Ram, Aged About - 55 Years, R/o Vill.-
Kachampur, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
53. Niranjan Das, S/o- Ramjanam Das, Aged About - 53 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Kauwal, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
54. Shweta Gupta, D/o- Nandu Gupta, Aged About - 35 Years, R/o Vill.-
Rudwo, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
55. Kapildeo Yadav, S/o- Suba Yadav, Aged About - 55 Years, R/o Vill.-
Mamhu, P.O. - Mumkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
56. Surendra Kumar Paswan, S/o- Birju Dusadh, Aged About - 40 Years,
R/o Vill.- Shiwdyaldih, P.O. - Naudiha, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
57. Ramashish Yadav, S/o- Mahabir Yadav, Aged About - 33 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Murmudag, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
58. Lalita Kumari, W/o- Laxman Prasad, Aged About - 48 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Latheya, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
59. Umesh Yadav, S/o- Dukhi Yadav, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Murmudag, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
60. Narayan Saw, S/o- Yuga Saw, Aged About - 56 Years, R/o Vill.-
Kalapahar, P.O. - Latheya, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
61. Ramawtar Ram, S/o- Ram Nandan Ram, Aged About - 48 Years, R/o
Vill.- Kalapahar, P.O. - Latheya, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
62. Sindhu Kumar Yadav, S/o- Jitan Yadav, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o
Vill.- Bagaiya, P.O. - Kauwal, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
63. Ajay Kumar Yadav, S/o- Mahabir Yadav, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Murmudag, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
64. Ram Pravesh Yadav, S/o- Naresh Yadav, Aged About - 33 Years, R/o
Vill.- Gundari, P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
65. Nagendra Kumar, S/o- Jagdish Ram, Aged About - 34 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
66. Dil Mohammad, S/o- Anis Ansari, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
67. Bhishm Narayan Singh, S/o- Shorai Singh, Aged About - 38 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
12

2026:JHHC:32332
68. Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, S/o- Raja Ram Prasad, Aged About - 56 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
69. Brij Bhushan Prasad, S/o- Mahendra Prasad, Aged About - 54 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
70. Birendra Prasad, S/o- Mahendra Prasad, Aged About - 45 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
71. Mobin Ansari, S/o- Ali Hussain Miyan, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
72. Wasim Akram, S/o- Ismile Mian, Aged About - 39 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
73. Abid Ansari, S/o- Nurullah Ansari, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
74. Akhtar Ansari, S/o- Yasin Miya, Aged About - 43 Years, R/o Vill.+P.O.
- Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
75. Narendra Kumar Singh, S/o- Parmeshwar Singh, Aged About - 54
Years, R/o Vill.+P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
76. Ramnath Ram, S/o- Rajdeo Ram, Aged About - 49 Years, R/o Vill.-
Kurkuta, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
77. Sukhlal Ram, S/o- Lakhan Ram, Aged About - 52 Years, R/o Vill.+P.O.
- Charai, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
78. Kumar Bhagwan Singh, S/o- Kapildeo Singh, Aged About - 55 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O. - Khajuri Naudiha, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
79. Kalam Ansari, S/o- Israil Ansari, Aged About - 43 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
80. Bandna Kumari, S/o- Baijnath Ram, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
81. Safique Ahmed Ansari, S/o- Jinnat Ansari, Aged About - 51 Years, R/o
Vill.- Chegauna, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
82. Gulam Shahid Ansari, S/o- Sobarti Ansari, Aged About - 40 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
83. Sakim Ansari, S/o- Md Asique, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o Vill.+P.O.
- Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
84. Enamul Haque, S/o- Md Shobarti, Aged About - 48 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
85. Aphsar Ansari, S/o- Khalil Ansari, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
86. Upendra Kumar Yadav, S/o- Brahmdeo Yadav, Aged About - 35 Years,
R/o Vill.- Arar, P.O. - Khorhi, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
87. Sudama Prasad Yadav, S/o- Ram Bilash Yadav, Aged About - 43 Years,
R/o Vill.- Arar, P.O. and P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
88. Ramjit Ram, S/o- Baldeo Ram, Aged About - 54 Years, R/o Vill.-
Chiru, P.O. - Munkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
89. Mahendra Kumar Yadav, S/o- Lakhan Yadav, Aged About - 35 Years,
R/o Vill.- Bandhudih, P.O. and P.S. - Udaygrah, Dist. - Palamu.
90. Binod Bihari, S/o- Dukhi Yadav, Aged About - 46 Years, R/o Vill.-
Bandhudih, P.O. and P.S. - Udaygrah, Dist. - Palamu.
13

2026:JHHC:32332
91. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, S/o- Balkeshwar Mahatam, Aged About - 41
Years, R/o Vill.- Bandhudih, P.O. - Udaygrah, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. -
Palamu.
92. Binod Singh, S/o- Sagar Singh, Aged About - 56 Years, R/o Vill.-
Chorar, P.O. - Udaygrah, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
93. Rina Kumari, D/o- Ramchandra Singh, Aged About - 35 Years, R/o
Vill.- Bhandardih, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
94. Vijay Kumar Gupta, S/o- Shiv Prasad Gupta, Aged About - 39 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
95. Madan Kumar, S/o- Shiv Baran Ram, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o
Vill.- Khandra Kala, P.O. – Khajuri, Nawadiha, P.S. Chhatarpur, Dist.-
Palamu.
96. Anita Kumari, S/o- Ram Bhajan Singh, Aged About - 32 Years, R/o
Vill.- Bagiya, P.O. - Kauwal, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
97. Amrendra Kumar, S/o- Baliram Prasad Yadav, Aged About - 35 Years,
R/o Vill.- Bagiya, P.O. - Kauwal, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
98. Priyanka Kumari, S/o- Brajesh Kumar Singh, Aged About - 38 Years,
R/o Vill.- Kauwal, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
99. Upendra Singh, S/o- Krishna Singh, Aged About - 40 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
100. Vikash Kumar, S/o- Yugeshwar Ram, Aged About - 38 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Dali, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
101. Sanjay Kumar, S/o- Vishwanath Saw, Aged About - 35 Years, R/o
Vill.- Rabda, P.O. - Namudag, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist. - Palamu.
102. Mangal Yadav, S/o- Bhola Yadav, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o Vill.-
Jawar, P.O. - Khairadohar, P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist. - Palamu.
103. Sushila Kunwar, S/o- Sanjay Prasad, Aged About - 46 Years, R/o
Vill.- Charain, P.O. - Charain, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
104. Ramashish Ram, S/o- Virja Ram, Aged About - 52 Years, R/o Vill.-
Bara, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
105. Pankaj Kumar, S/o- Ambika Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About - 40 Years,
R/o Vill.- Kund Muhhla, P.O.+P.S. - Daltonganj, Dist. - Palamu.
106. Rajesh Prasad Yadav, S/o- Ram Lakhan Prasad Yadav, Aged About -
37 Years, R/o Vill.- Bagiya, P.O. - Kauwal, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. -
Palamu.
107. Ravindra Kumar Yadav, S/o- Lakhan Yadav, Aged About - 39 Years,
R/o Vill.- Chiru, P.O. - Munkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
108. Bishwanath Ram, S/o- Ghutani Ram, Aged About - 51 Years, R/o
Vill.- Bara, P.O.+P.S. - Naudiha Bazar, Dist. - Palamu.
109. Anjani Kumari, S/o- Bigu Ram, Aged About - 40 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Latheya, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
110. Pramila Kumari, W/o- Awadh Kumar Singh, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Vill.- Danduta, P.O. - Munkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
111. Satyendra Yadav, S/o- Nanhak Yadav, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o
Vill.- Tardih, P.O. - Khajuri Naudiha, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
112. Ram Narayan Yadav, S/o- Chandradev Yadav, Aged About - 55 Years,
R/o Vill.- Dundar, P.O. - Latheya, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
14

2026:JHHC:32332
113. Manoj Kumar Singh, S/o- Madho Singh, Aged About - 55 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
114. Pradip Kumar Singh, S/o- Late Surendra Singh, Aged About - 55
Years, R/o Vill.+P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
115. Preeti Kumari, D/o- Birendra Singh, Aged About - 35 Years, R/o
Vill.- Telari, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhattarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
116. Vikram Kumar Singh, S/o- Birendra Kumar Singh, Aged About - 38
Years, R/o Vill.- Telari, P.O.+P.S. - Telari, Dist. - Palamu.
117. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, S/o- Surendra Prasad Singh, Aged About -
49 Years, R/o Vill.- Mahuri, P.S. - Hussainabad, Dist. - Palamu.
118. Brajesh Kumar Singh, S/o- Chandra Shekhar Singh, Aged About - 41
Years, R/o Vill.+P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
119. Dinesh Ram, S/o- Ramlagan Ram, Aged About - 39 Years, R/o Vill.-
Manhu, P.O. - Munkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
120. Kusum Kumari, W/o- Indal Yadav, Aged About - 38 Years, R/o Vill.-
Chiro, P.O. - Munkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
121. Ajay Ram, S/o- Phenku Ram, Aged About - 35 Years, R/o Vill.-
Rudawa, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
122. Dilip Kumar Singh, S/o- Upendra Nath Singh, Aged About - 58
Years, R/o Vill.- Khajuri, P.O. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
123. Gita Kumari, D/o- Gupteshwar Prasad Singh, Aged About - 49 Years,
R/o Vill.- Khajuri, P.O. and P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
124. Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, S/o- Hazari Saw, Aged About - 57 Years, R/o
Vill.- Arar, P.O. - Khodhi, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
125. Gauraw Kumar Yadav, S/o- Jagdish Yadav, Aged About - 36 Years,
R/o Vill.- Arar, P.O. - Khodhi, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
126. Jitendra Yadav, S/o- Malikchand Yadav, Aged About - 32 Years, R/o
Vill.- Hutukdag, P.O. - Hutukdag, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
127. Santosh Kumar Pathak, S/o- Gupteshwar Pathak, Aged About - 47
Years, R/o Vill.- Hutukdag, P.O. - Hutukdag, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. -
Palamu.
128. Kausar Ali, S/o- Yar Mohammad, Aged About - 38 Years, R/o Vill.-
Akabasa, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
129. Amarik Yadav, S/o- Balkeshwar Yadav, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o
Vill.- Sushiganj, P.O. - Latheya, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
130. Rajbali Singh, S/o- Bineshar Singh, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o Vill.-
Taradih, P.O. - Naudiha, Khajuri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
131. Mohammad Zafeeruddin, S/o- Md Subhan, Aged About - 48 Years,
R/o Vill.- Khendra, P.O. - Naudiha, Khajuri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. -
Palamu.
132. Surendra Yadav, S/o- Mukhdev Yadav, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o
Vill.- Gontha, P.O. - Latheya, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
133. Niranjan Kumar Yadav, S/o- Kail Yadav, Aged About - 51 Years, R/o
Vill.- Manjhali, P.O. and P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
134. Ram Lal Yadav, S/o- Naku Yadav, Aged About - 52 Years, R/o Vill.-
Manjhouli, P.O. and P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
135. Vikash Kumar, S/o- Narendra Kumar, Aged About - 35 Years, R/o
Vill.- Tenudih, P.O. - Munkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
15

2026:JHHC:32332
136. Mahendra Kumar Yadav, S/o- Sita Ram Yadav, Aged About - 48
Years, R/o Vill.- Reganiya, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
137. Manoj Yadav, S/o- Mahendra Yadav, Aged About - 42 Years, R/o
Vill.- Dundur, P.O. - Latheya, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
138. Sanaullah, S/o- Karim Baksh, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o Vill.-
Akabasa, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
139. Gulam Sarwar Ansari, S/o- Md. Ibrahim Ansari, Aged About - 37
Years, R/o Vill.- Akabasa, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
140. Saryu Yadav, S/o- Md. Phaguni Yadav, Aged About - 40 Years, R/o
Vill.- Dinadag, P.O. - Kauwal, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
141. Umesh Kumar Singh, S/o- Rambihari Singh, Aged About - 52 Years,
R/o Vill.- Karma, P.O. - Hutukdag, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
142. Premchand Kumar, S/o- Banarsi Prasad, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o
Vill.- Karma, P.O. - Hutukdag, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
143. Arjun Oraon, S/o- Balgobind Oraon, Aged About - 45 Years, R/o
Vill.- Hutukdag, P.O. and P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
144. Rambha Kumar, D/o- Ram Naresh Singh, Aged About - 35 Years,
R/o Vill.- Karma, P.O. - Hutukdag, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
145. Soni Devi, W/o- Santosh Prasad, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o Vill.-
Rudwa, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
146. Mirtubijay Singh, S/o- Hari Gopal Singh, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o
Vill.- Chuchudumad, P.O. - Manjhauli, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
147. Birendra Singh, S/o- Munni Singh, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o Vill.-
Manjhauli, P.O. and P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
148. Raj Kumar Yadav, S/o- Sheo Yadav, Aged About - 49 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Manjhauli, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
149. Arun Kumar Yadav, S/o- Sitaram Yadav, Aged About - 36 Years, R/o
Vill.- Rudwa, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
150. Dwarika Singh, S/o- Tapeshwar Singh, Aged About - 47 Years, R/o
Vill.- Rudwa, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
151. Sarita Kumari, W/o- Prem Chan Kumar, Aged About - 46 Years, R/o
Vill.- Rudwa, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
152. Om Prakash Gupta, S/o- Arjun Prasad Gupta, Aged About - 43 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
153. Mukesh Thakur, S/o- Shiv Kumar Thakur, Aged About - 37 Years,
R/o Vill.- Murmudag, P.O. - Dalli, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
154. Pramod Choudhary, S/o- Ram Charitar Chudhari, Aged About - 41
Years, R/o Vill.+P.O. - Charain, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
155. Shiv Pujan Prasad, S/o- Sur Bihari Prasad, Aged About - 38 Years,
R/o Vill.+P.O. - Charain, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
156. Chandan Vishwakarma, S/o- Girija Vishwakarma, Aged About - 39
Years, R/o Vill.- Karma, P.O. - Charain, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
157. Sakendra Yadav, S/o- Prameshwar Yadav, Aged About - 35 Years, R/o
Vill.- Rudwa, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
158. Awdhesh Kumar Yadav, S/o- Matukdhari Yadav, Aged About - 35
Years, R/o Vill.- Kumbhi Khurd, P.O.+P.S. - Nawa Bazar, Dist. - Palamu.
159. Yamuna Prajapati, S/o- Lakhan Prajapati, Aged About - 47 Years, R/o
Vill.- Bara, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
16

2026:JHHC:32332
160. Damodar Prasad, S/o- Devki Saw, Aged About - 51 Years, R/o Vill.-
Manjhauli, P.O. and P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
161. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, S/o- Jagdish Yadav, Aged About - 36 Years,
R/o Vill.- Sungari, P.O. - Munkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
162. Raghaw Ram Singh, S/o- Krishna Prasad Singh, Aged About - 53
Years, R/o Vill.- Dhakcha, P.O. - Pachmo, P.S. - Hariharganj, Dist. -
Palamu.
163. Nageshwar Singh, S/o- Krit Singh, Aged About - 57 Years, R/o Vill.-
Tuktuka, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
164. Binay Kumar Singh, S/o- Kamata Prasad Singh, Aged About - 58
Years, R/o Vill.- Mashihani, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
165. Radheshwari Prasad, S/o- Indradeo Ram, Aged About - 51 Years, R/o
Vill.- Namudag, P.O. - Namudag, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
166. Sanjay Kumar Singh, S/o- Mandrika Singh, Aged About - 48 Years,
R/o Vill.- Nimiya, P.O. - Dulhi, P.S. - Patan, Dist. - Palamu.
167. Manoranjan Kumar Singh, S/o- Ramoutar Singh, Aged About - 35
Years, R/o Vill.- Murmudag, P.O. - Mukeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. -
Palamu.
168. Manoj Kumar Singh, S/o- Mukhdeo Singh, Aged About - 36 Years,
R/o Vill.- Murmudag, P.O. - Munkeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
169. Sanjay Ram, S/o- Paran Ram, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o Vill.-
Chodar, P.O. - Udaigarh, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
170. Ajay Kumar Yadav, S/o- Jhubal Yadav, Aged About - 41 Years, R/o
Vill.- Khodhi, P.O. - Khodhi, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
171. Suresh Yadav, S/o- Puran Yadav, Aged About - 46 Years, R/o
Vill.+P.O. - Khodhi, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
172. Lalita Kumari, W/o- Murli Prasad, Aged About - 45 Years, R/o Vill.-
Saharaswa, P.O. - Mukeri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
173. Indu Devi, W/o- Satyanarayan Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About - 54
Years, R/o Vill.- Arar, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
174. Wokindra Ram, S/o- Kameshwar Ram, Aged About - 40 Years, R/o
Vill.- Khendra Kala, P.O. - Khajuri, Naudiha, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. -
Palamu.
175. Dinesh Prasad Gupta, S/o- Charitar Saw, Aged About - 37 Years, R/o
Vill.- Khendra Khurd, P.O. - Khajuri Nawadiha, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. -
Palamu.
176. Archana Kumari, D/o- Niranjan Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About - 37
Years, R/o Vill.- Khendra Kala, P.O. - Khajuri, Naudiha, P.S. - Chhatarpur,
Dist. - Palamu.
177. Satyendra Paswan, S/o- Bhuneshwar Paswan, Aged About - 37 Years,
R/o Vill.- Tardih, P.O. - Naudih Khajuri, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
178. Akhileshwar Yadav, S/o- Dinesh Yadav, Aged About - 57 Years, R/o
Vill.- Tuktuka, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
179. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, S/o- Shyam Bihari Das, Aged About - 43
Years, R/o Vill.- Bara-03, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
180. Navin Kumar Singh, S/o- Ajeet Kumar Singh, Aged About - 41 Years,
R/o Vill.- Bhadwa, P.O. - Khajuri, Naudiha, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. -
Palamu.
17

2026:JHHC:32332
181. Umesh Prasad Yadav, S/o- Bishwanath Prasad Yadav, Aged About -
46 Years, R/o Vill.- Murmudag, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
182. Jitendra Prasad Gupta, S/o- Balmukund Saw, Aged About - 39 Years,
R/o Vill.- Mashihani, P.O.+P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu. (Deleted
vide order dated 17.02.2026)
183. Sanjay Kumar Singh, S/o- Suresh Prasad Singh, Aged About - 57
Years, R/o Vill.- Kawal, P.O. - Telari, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist. - Palamu.
184. Chandan Prasad Gupta, S/o Suryadev Prasad Gupta, aged about 40
years, R/o village-Chhatarpur, P.O. Chhatarpur, P.S. Chhatarpur, Dist.-
Palamu.
185.Anuj Kumar Yadav, S/o Shayam Narayan Yadav, aged about 40 years,
R/o village-Basdiha, P.O. Chhatarpur, P.S. Chhatarpur, Dist.-Palamu.
…… Petitioners
V E R S U S
1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School
Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O
and P.S Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, officiating from his office at O/o
Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate Building, Medninagar, P.O and P.S
Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
3. The District Education Officer, Palamu, officiating from his office at
Collectorate Building, Medninagar, P.O and P.S Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
4. The Block Extension Officer-cum-Coordinator, Chhattarpur Block,
having his office at Chhattarpur, P.O and P.S Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
5. Jharkhand Education Project Council, State Project Office, Officiating
from - Old HEC High School, JSCA Stadium Road, Sector - 3, P.O. & P.S.
- Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi
6. District Superintendent of Education-cum-under District Programme
Officer, SSA, JEPC, Palamu, Office at - Collectorate Building,
Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District - Palamu, Jharkhand
…… Respondents
with
W.P (S) No. 5240 of 2025
Usha Kumari, aged about 38 years, daughter of Yamuna Ram, permanent
resident of Village-Rabda, P.O. Namudag, P.S. Naudiha Bazar, Dist.-
Palamu. …… Petitioners
V E R S U S
1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School
Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O
and P.S Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, officiating from his office at O/o
Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate Building, Medninagar, P.O and P.S
Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
3. The District Education Officer, Palamu, officiating from his office at
Collectorate Building, Medninagar, P.O and P.S Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
4. The Block Extension Officer-cum-Coordinator, Chhattarpur Block,
having his office at Chhattarpur, P.O and P.S Daltonganj, Dist-Palamu.
18

2026:JHHC:32332
5. Jharkhand Education Project Council, State Project Office, Officiating
from - Old HEC High School, JSCA Stadium Road, Sector - 3, P.O. & P.S.
- Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi
6. District Superintendent of Education-cum-under District Programme
Officer, SSA, JEPC, Palamu, Office at - Collectorate Building,
Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District - Palamu, Jharkhand
…… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Adv
Mr. Parth Jalan, Adv
For the Respondent-JEPC : Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv
For Respondent State : Ms. Oishi Das, Adv
Mr. Priyadarshini, GP-VI
Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, AC to GP-VI
Mr. Raj Vardhan. Adv
….…..

C.A.V. ON: 24/09/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:04 /11/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This batch of writ petitions is heard together, as the relief and the
contentions by the parties sought is common in nature and disposed of as a
common order. On the request of the parties, WP(S) 4915 of 2025 (Abhishek
Kumar and Ors v. State of Jharkhand and Ors) is taken up as the lead case.
3. In the instant petitions, the petitioner has, inter alia , prayed for
issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order, bearing Reference No.
1575, dated January 16, 2025, issued by the First Appellate Authority-cum-
Deputy Commissioner, Palamu (Annexure-7), by which the services of the
Petitioners have been terminated. The Petitioner has further prayed for all
consequential reliefs.
Submission on behalf of Petitioners.
4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Ld. Counsel representing the Petitioners,
assisted by Mr. Parth Jalan. Adv, submits that the Petitioners in these batch of
cases are all para-teachers working in two blocks within the District of Palamu,
19

2026:JHHC:32332
i.e., Naudiah Bazar and Chhatarpur. The services of the Petitioner have been
terminated by virtue of the impugned order dated 16.1.2025 by the First
Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Palamu.
5. Ld. Counsel further submits that the impugned order is common in
all the petitions. The impugned order contains eight annexures (Annexure A to
H). Annexure-A and B are such para-teachers, whose appointment and
qualification has found to be in accordance with law.
6. Annexure C and Annexure D, are persons serving as para-teachers in
Naudiah Bazar and Chhatarpur respectively. The persons mentioned in these
categories are those whose services have been terminated on the ground that
the Block level recommendation submitted by candidates, did not match with
the recommendation in the Block Offices. The persons whose name feature in
Annexure C of the impugned order have filed WP(S) 4785 of 2025 and whose
names are part of Annexure D of the impugned order have filed WP(S) 4917 of
2025 .
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, further submits that the next
category of Petitioners is those whose names feature in Annexure E and
Annexure F of the impugned order. These are such para-teachers whose
services are terminated on account that they failed to provide documents
pertaining to their recommendations from the block office. Their
recommendation was also not found in the block offices. Such persons whose
names feature in Annexures E have filed WP(S) No. 4915 of 2025, WP(S) No.
4787 of 2025 and WP(S) No. 5240 of 2025 . Persons whose name feature in
Annexure F of the impugned order have filed WP(S) No. 5080 of 2025 .
20

2026:JHHC:32332
8. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners on merits submits that
the Petitioners’ appointment was made between the years 2006 and 2008 under
the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan implemented by Notification dated August 4, 2002,
and accordingly the Petitioners were in service for more than 16 years. The
appointment of para teachers under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was made by
the Aam Sabha of the concerned village pursuant to an advertisement.
Recommendations made by the Aam Sabha was submitted to the block office,
whereupon after proper scrutiny, agreements were executed by and between the
selected candidate and Secretary of the Aam Sabha.
9. The Ld. counsel submits that in the case at hand, advertisements were
issued, and pursuant to the selections, recommendations were made to the block
office, after which agreements were signed.
10. Learned counsel further submits that in the year 2012, an inquiry was
initiated on the basis of certain complaints raising concerns pertaining to a
discrepancy in the selection/appointment of para-teachers. However, as the
inquiry itself suffered from several lacunae, another inquiry was directed in the
year 2019. The findings returned in the inquiry conducted in the year 2019,
contradicted with the findings returned in the year 2012. This resulted in the
constitution of a special committee by the Vidhan Sabha , which recommended
that a fresh inquiry be conducted by a high-powered committee. In light of such
recommendation, a high-powered committee was constituted vide notification
dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure E of the counter-affidavit).
11. The High-Powered Committee, in its report dated 30.11.2022
(Annexure F of the counter-affidavit), found that a total of 512 para-teachers
21

2026:JHHC:32332
(302 para-teachers from Chattarpur and 210 para-teachers from Naudiah
Bazar), whose selection/recommendation was not in accordance with the
guidelines. On the basis of this, the respondent JEPC, in its 64th sitting on
10.7.2023, recommended that such persons who met the eligibility criteria, at
the time of their appointment but their selection process suffered from some
discrepancy in the selection process would be treated as a special case, and all
benefits under the Jharkhand Assistant Teacher Service Rules, 2015 , would be
given to such candidates. However, the services of such candidates who neither
met the eligibility criteria, nor was their selection process done in accordance
with law, was to be removed from service. These recommendations were
forwarded to the disciplinary cum administrative committee for further action.
Pursuant to such a recommendation and until a decision was taken by the
disciplinary cum administrative committee, the State Project Director, vide his
order dated 13.10.2023, directed that no services would be taken from these
512 teachers. The petitioners assailed the said order by filing a batch of writ
petitions, being WP(S) No. 6021 of 2023 and other analogous cases. This Court,
vide its order dated 1.7.2024, refused to interfere with the order dated
13.10.2023, primarily on the ground that the issue was pending before the
disciplinary cum administrative committee, but directed that the concerned
authority should take a decision expeditiously.
12. The Disciplinary Administrative Committee took a decision in
favour of the petitioners on 13.03.2024 and 27.04.2024. However, the said
decision was assailed before the First Appellate Authority (i.e. Deputy
22

2026:JHHC:32332
Commissioner, Palamu), who passed the impugned order terminating the
services of the petitioner.
13. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Gadodia representing the
Petitioners submits that the impugned order is not only arbitrary but also
perverse. He contended that the cases of such para-teachers whose selection
process suffered from certain procedural lacunae were treated to be special
cases, and their services were to be regularised. The Ld. Counsel, on basis of
paragraph xi) of the counter-affidavit (filed in WP(S) No. 4915 of 2025),
submits that the admitted position is that the disciplinary cum administrative
committee had held in the favour of the Petitioners. He further submits that
only such candidates who did not possess the eligibility criteria were liable to
be terminated.
14. Learned counsel specifically submitted that the Petitioners before
this Court are meeting the eligibility criteria as required at the time of their
appointment. According to the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, this is apparent
from the fact that such persons who did not possess the eligibility criteria were
kept in a separate category, and their names feature in Annexure G and
Annexure H of the impugned order, while the name of the Petitioners before
this Court features in Annexure C to F of the impugned order.
15. Further, the Learned counsel submits that it was not the onus of the
petitioners to submit the recommendation made by the block-level committee.
The same was an internal procedure which had to be done by the respondents
themselves. He has tried to substantiate the same by placing heavy reliance on
the information provided to the Special Committee on 26.07.2019, which
23

2026:JHHC:32332
categorically states that the onus to maintain all documents pertaining to the
selection of the para teachers was to be maintained in the office of the block
education project officer or in the office of the District Education
Superintendent.
16. The Ld. counsel further submits that the long-term service of the
petitioner has been terminated merely on the premise that either the block-level
recommendation submitted by the petitioners did not match with that found in
the block-level office, or the petitioners failed to submit the same before the
first appellate authority. He submits that when the onus to maintain the
documents was with respondent itself; there was no occasion for the petitioners
to have submitted such recommendation.
17. Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the documents
containing details for verification and updation, uploaded by respondent itself
on e-vidyavahini portal, which specifically contains the date of approval by the
block committee/induction training. He submits that the e-vidyaavahini portal
was formed pursuant to notification issued on 24.10.2019, the purpose for
which was to update all information pertaining to the para-teachers. Once the
respondent themselves has accepted the date of approval by the block
committee, the findings returned by the first appellate authority become
perverse. A table to this effect has been submitted by the Learned counsel for
the Petitioner, which is reproduced as under:
WP(S) 4787 of 2025
Name of the Petitioner Block Development Approval/ Induction
Training Start Date (From the Rejoinder)
Sudama Paswan 28.08.2008
Vishnupat Kumar 29.12.2006
Kamlesh Paswan 29.12.2006
24

2026:JHHC:32332
Shiva Nath Thakur 11.10.2007
Sanjay Vishwakarma 29.08.2007
Santosh Rajak 29.09.2006
Anupa Kumari 05.07.2007
Rajendra Prasad 29.09.2006
Sumitra Devi 29.08.2007
Anil Kumar Singh 29.12.2006
Yogendra Kumar 26.03.2003
Sangita Kumari 16.11.2006
Usha Kumari 21.07.2017
WP(S) 4785 of 2025
Dharmendra Kumar 29.12.2006
Manoj Kumar Yadav 29.12.2006
Santosh Kumar 29.12.2006
Sushma Kumar 29.09.2006
Awadhesh Kumar 29.12.2006
Md. Nure Alam 22.09.2006
Sudhir Kumar 22.09.2006
Anuj Kumar Singh 24.01.2006
Lalan Prasad 24.01.2006
Umesh Baitha 22.09.2006
Ghanshyam Kumar 01.10.2006
Shahansha Alam 29.12.2007
Sangita Gupta 29.12.2006
Pravesh Ram 29.12.2006
Sanjeet Kumar 22.09.2006
Puspa Kumari 29.09.2006
Mithilesh Kumar Ravi 29.12.2006

WP(S) 4915 of 2025
Abhishek Kumar 24.01.2006
Arun Kumar Vishwakarma 29.12.2006
Kuldip Kumar Yadav 21.07.2017
Binay Kumar Yadav 27.11.2007
Nikhil Ranjan 30.10.2007
Anuj Kumar 24.01.2006
Manoj Rajak 29.12.2006
Ranjit Kumar Singh 24.01.2006
Bhola Prasad Gupta 12.11.2007
Santosh Kumar Pathak 29.12.2006
Vikash Prasad Gupta 29.09.2010
Bajrangi Kumar Gupta 09.08.2009
Krishna Prasad 26.03.2003
Parmeshwar Ram 29.12.2006
22. Guddu Prasad Yadav 21.07.2017
23. Nagendra Kumar Yadav 01.12.2006
24. Rajkishor Kumar 29.12.2006
25. Sadam Husain 29.08.2008
26. Satyendra Prasad 22.09.2006
28.Suresh Yadav 29.08.2007
Mithlesh Kumar 29.08.2008
Raj Kumar Yadav 12.12.2007
Prema Kumari 04.03.2010
25

2026:JHHC:32332
Ranjeet Kumar 11.10.2007
Vishvanath Yadav 12.12.2007
Anil Ram 29.08.2007
Arunajay Kumar Singh 12.11.2007
Kamta Prasad 20.01.2005
Ravindra Kumar Yadav 29.12.2006
Binod Vishwkarma 29.08.2007
Ravindra Rajak 29.08.2007
Sarita Kumari 29.12.2006
Birbal Prasad 27.01.2011
Pintu Kumar 29.08.2008
Rakesh Kumar Yadav 30.10.2008
Shivdhyan Singh 29.12.2006
Saryu Thakur 29.12.2006
Ram Vilash Yadav 21.07.2017
Shambhu Yadav 21.07.2017
Rahul Ranjan 29.07.2017
Bashishth Kumar Yadav 21.07.2017
Mithlesh Yadav 30.10.2007
Dimpal Kumari 14.10.2009
Mukesh Kumar 29.12.2006
Savita Kumari 11.10.2007
Santosh Kumar Singh 29.12.2006
Santosh Kumar 29.12.2006
WP(S) 4917 of 2025
Madhu Kumari 25.07.2005
Sunil Kumar 24.10.2006
Santosh Prasad 24.01.2006
Sosan Kachhap 03.11.2007
Satyendra Kumar Singh 03.01.2007
Akhilesh Kumar 03.01.2007
Md. Irfan Ali 07.01.2007
Mithilesh Kumar Yadav 03.01.2007
WP(S) 5080 of 2025
Sudama Prasad Rajak 24.01.2006
Binod Kumar Singh 24.01.2006
Sachin Kumar Pandey 01.03.2007
Dharmendra Kumar 20.06.2006
Nilam Kumari 07.11.2007
Shriram Choudhary 16.11.2006
Kumari Urmila 12.01.2011
Baijyanti Sharma 10.11.2007
Sunil Kumar Yadav 07.11.2007
Ajeet Kumar 01.11.2006
Niranjan Kumar 21.11.2007
Ashok Kumar Singh 01.12.2006
Amod Kumar Sharma 13.07.2017
Sarita Kumari 13.07.2017
Shiv Shankar Ram 03.01.2007
Pramod Ram 01.11.2006
Upendra Kumar Paswan 24.01.2006
Khurshid Alam 03.01.2007
Satyendra Ram 03.01.2007
Rabina Khatun 05.10.2006
Ashish Kumar Jayswal 11.10.2007
26

2026:JHHC:32332
Niranjan Das 07.11.2007
Shweta Gupta 05.08.2017
Surendra Kumar Paswan 03.01.2007
Lalita Kumari 29.01.2006
Sindhu Kumar Yadav 07.01.2008
Dil Mohammad 07.12.2009
Bhishm Narayan Singh 19.12.2012
Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal 07.12.2009
Brij Bhushan Prasad 07.12.2009
Birendra Prasad 07.12.2009
Mobin Ansari 07.12.2009
Wasim Akram 19.12.2012
Abid Ansari 07.12.2009
Akhtar Ansari 07.12.2009
Ramnath Ram 03.01.2007
Kalam Ansari 07.12.2009
Sakim Ansari 30.10.2009
Enamul Haque 30.10.2009
Aphsar Ansari 30.10.2009
Sudama Prasad Yadav 03.01.2007
Ramjit Ram 26.03.2003
Mahendra Kumar Yadav 01.08.2009
Binod Singh 12.11.2007
Upendra Singh 07.12.2009
Vikash Kumar 19.12.2012
Bishwanath Ram 19.08.2008
Pramila Kumari 01.12.2006
Ram Narayan Yadav 27.11.2007
Ajay Ram 06.08.2017
Gita Kumari 05.10.2006
Kausar Ali 07.12.2009
Amarik Yadav 13.07.2017
Mohammad Zafeeruddin 03.01.2007
Mahendra Kumar Yadav 03.01.2007
Manoj Yadav 16.08.2008(I)
Sanaullah 07.12.2009(I)
Gulam Sarwar Ansari 18.09.2007
Saryu Yadav 29.08.2007
Umesh Kumar Singh 03.01.2007
Premchand Kumar 21.11.2007
Rambha Kumari 25.12.2012
Arun Kumar Yadav 21.11.2007
Om Prakash Gupta 03.01.2007
Pramod Choudhary 23.08.2008
Shiv Pujan Prasad 18.09.2007
Sanjay Kumar Singh 03.11.2007
Sanjay Ram 16.11.2004
Suresh Yadav 03.01.2007
172. Satyendra Paswan 07.11.2007


18. Mr. Gadodia submitted that the RTI reply dated 8.7.2015, strengthens
his contention that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of
conjunctures, as in the reply to an application preferred under the Right to
27

2026:JHHC:32332
Information Act, 2005, it has been categorically stated that no list pertaining to
the recommendations made by the block-level committee is present at the block
office.
19. It is next contended that the first appellate authority has passed the
impugned order without considering the recommendation made in the 64th
committee meeting. He submits that the impugned order violates Article 14 of
the Constitution of India, as even the case of the petitioner also ought to be
treated as a special case as, even if the grounds taken in the impugned order are
accepted, the same would only amount to a procedural lacuna and would not
make the appointment itself illegal, especially in light of the fact that the
petitioners possessed the required eligibility criteria at the time of their
appointment.
20. In order to buttress his arguments further, the Ld. Counsel
representing the petitioner has relied in the case of Shankar Ghosh v. State of
Jharkhand and Ors (MANU/JH/0013/2010) , wherein the Hon'ble Court had
held that long-term services cannot be terminated on the basis of allegations
that the appointment process was not followed. Drawing strength from the
order passed in the case of Arjun Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors reported
in (2017 (2) JLJR 647) , the Ld. counsel representing the petitioner submits that
the employee cannot be penalized if any document which ought to be in the
custody of the employer is not produced or goes missing.
21. He lastly submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gaurav
Mehla and Ors v. State of Haryana and Ors reported in (2026 SCCOnline SC

1107 ), has divided any recruitment process into three distinct stages, which are-
issuance of proper advertisement, conducting a fair and transparent selection
process, and appointment by a competent authority. The Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that when the first two stages, that is, issuance of proper advertisement
and conducting a fair and transparent selection process, are done properly, any
discrepancy in appointment by a competent authority cannot go into the root of
the recruitment process itself, and would not vitiate, more so when such persons
have already served for a long time.
Submission by Respondent-JEPC .
28

2026:JHHC:32332
22. Per contra , Mr. Krishna Murari, Ld. Counsel representing the
Respondent-JEPC, vehemently opposed the relief sought by the petitioners on
the ground of maintainability of the writ petition itself. He submitted that
petitioners ought to have approached the second appellate authority, that is, the
State Project Director, in terms of Rule 16 of the Jharkhand Assistant Teacher
Service Rules, 2021 . He submits that in the presence of an alternate and
efficacious remedy, this court cannot exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In order to further buttress his
argument, he has relied on the case of Leelawati N. and Ors v. State of
Karnataka and Ors reported in (2025 SCC Online SC 2253). The respondents
have filed a specific interlocutory application with respect to the same.
23. Learned counsel representing the Respondent further submits that,
even otherwise, this Court cannot look into the soundness of the decision, but
can only see if proper procedure has been followed. This argument has been
strengthened by him relying on the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and
Ors v. AMR Dev Prabha and Ors reported in (2020) 16 SCC 759 .
24. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, the Ld. counsel on
behalf of the respondent submits that block-level recommendations are
mandatory, and in the case of the petitioner, such block-level recommendation
was lacking. This aspect of the matter, according to the petitioner, has been long
settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Usha Kumari and
Ors v. State of Jharkhand and Ors (LPA No. 151 of 2018).
25. Respondents further submitted that the petitioners are persons who
did not possess the requisite qualification at the time of their appointment, and
also due procedure was not followed. In such cases, no sympathy is warranted
to the Petitioners. The Ld. Counsel has relied on the case of State of Orissa and
Anr v. Mamta Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 , where the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that education connotes the process of training and developing the
knowledge, skills, minds, and character of students by formal schools. As the
excellence of instruction provided by an educational institution mainly depends
directly on the excellence of the teaching staff, it is important that they
29

2026:JHHC:32332
themselves possess a good academic record/minimum qualification prescribed
as an eligibility standard, failing which education cannot be maintained.
Rejoinder by the Petitioner
26. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner in reply had
submitted that there is a distinction between entertainability and maintainability
of a writ petition. The exhaustion of statutory remedy is a rule of judicial policy
and discretion, rather than an absolute judicial bar to the exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He categorically submits that
where the action by a subordinate authority is perverse, unreasonable, and
suffers from a manifest error going to the very root of determination, then, in
such a case, the self-imposed restriction of an alternate remedy would not apply.
He submits that, in the case at hand, the impugned orders were passed without
taking into consideration vital documents such as the verified and uploaded
records in the e-vidyavahini portal, which leave no doubt that the petitioners’
appointment were approved from the block-level committee. Once it is
established that vital evidence, which must have been considered by the
authority, has been overlooked, then, in such a case, the impugned order would
suffer from manifest error and perversity, leaving it open for this Court to
entertain the writ petition.
27. He further submits that the alternative remedy proposed should also
be efficacious. In the case at hand, the second appellate authority is the State
Project Director who has already disclosed his mind as being a member of not
only the 64th committee meeting held on 10.7.2023 but also the authority that
had discontinued the services of the petitioner, pending a decision from the
disciplinary cum administrative authority. Thus, it is submitted by the petitioner
that relegating the petitioner to the alternate statutory remedy would not be
efficacious.
28. It is next submitted that the block-level recommendation, even if
mandatory and not made, cannot be a ground to terminate the services of the
petitioner after a lapse of more than 20 years. More so, in light of the fact that
the petitioners possess all requisite qualifications and there are no instances of
any complaints as against the petitioners in discharge of their duties.
30

2026:JHHC:32332
Discussion and Finding .
29. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
records, the issues for the adjudication of these petitions is carved as under:
(i) Whether the instant petition is maintainable in view of an
alternative statutory remedy under Rule 16 of the
Jharkhand Assistant Teacher Service Rules, 2021?
(ii) Whether the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and
suffers from perversity?
30. Coming to the first issue, that is, the maintainability of the instant
writ petition, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent-JEPC has seriously objected
to the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground of an alternate
and efficacious statutory remedy being present. His submission is primarily
based on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Leelawati N. and Ors v. State of Karnataka and Ors reported in ( 2025
SCC Online SC 2253).
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the above-mentioned case,
relegated the parties to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal while
returning a finding that such tribunals are the primary authority vested with the
jurisdiction to hear matters pertaining to recruitment in light of the judgment
rendered in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC
261.
32. The submission of the Ld. counsel of the respondent-JEPC seems to
hold water, at first sight; however, this Court cannot lose sight of the arguments
advanced by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners. The question about the limits
of the jurisdiction of the High Courts in issuing a writ under Article 226 has
been frequently considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and the same is no
longer in doubt. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakub v. K.S
Radhakrishnan and Ors reported in (1964) 5 SCR 64 , has held that once it is
established that an order impugned suffers from manifest error or perversity,
the plea of alternative remedy would not come to the aid of the respondents.
33. Thus, once manifest error or perversity is established, this Court has
a constitutional duty to correct such perversity or manifest error by exercising
31

2026:JHHC:32332
its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
term “perversity” has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of PSA Sical Terminals Private Limited v. The Board of Trustees of VO
Chidambranar Port Trust, Tutikorin and Ors reported in (2021 INSC 365) , to
mean a case “when a finding is based on no evidence, or a finding is based on
taking into account something irrelevant, or vital evidence in arriving at its
decision has been ignored, then a decision can be said to be perverse.”
34. On the basis of the submissions of the parties, it is apparent that the
services of the petitioners were terminated for want of recommendations by the
block-level committee. The impugned order records the services of some of the
petitioners were terminated on account of their failure to submit the block-level
recommendations. In some cases where the petitioners submitted the block-
level recommendations, the same did not tally with the records in the block
office, or there were no records found in the block office altogether.
35. The respondent has never disputed the records as contained in the e-
vidyavahini portal. The said record, unambiguously reflects that the
appointments were made, that the petitioners were appointed after following
due process of law, and there was a recommendation by the Gram Sabha, which
was approved by the block-level office. Further, the records clearly reveal that
the petitioners were not only inducted into service after approval by the
competent authority but were further given induction training and continued in
the service of the respondent.
36. This report generated by the respondents has not been considered by
the First Appellate Authority. The impugned order further fails to reflect any
consideration by the authority with respect to the proposals/recommendation
made by JEPC in its 64th meeting. Such non-consideration of vital evidence
would not only make the impugned order suffer from manifest error, but also
make the order perverse. Once such perversity is prima facie established, this
court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to further examine as to
whether any interference is warranted.
37. This Court further finds force in the alternative argument advanced
by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, that the statutory remedy would no longer
32

2026:JHHC:32332
be efficacious. The Second Appellate Authority in the case at hand is the State
Project Director, who seems to have already disclosed his mind, while issuing
the order dated 13.10.2023, by which the Petitioners were restrained to disclose
their duties and their honorarium/salary was stopped, subject to the decision of
the disciplinary cum administrative authority.
38. The State Project Director is the head of Respondent-JEPC and
admittedly, it was the decision of JEPC to challenge the order passed by the
disciplinary cum administrative authority, which was in favour of the
petitioners.
39. The principle that ‘Justice should not only be done but also seem to
have been done’, is an important aspect of the judicial system of this country.
Once the second Appellate authority disclosed his mind by restraining the
petitioners to discharge their duties and stopping their honorarium/salary and
further appealing the order of the disciplinary cum administrative authority;
then relegating the Petitioners to this authority would be an empty formality. It
would essentially be a case of appeal from Caesar to Caesar's wife. In such
cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, as in the case of, Dhampur Sugar Mills
Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors reported in (2007) 8 SCC 338 , that,
alternate remedy would not be a bar in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
40. This also distinguishes these cases from that of Leelawati N. and Ors
v. State of Karnataka and Ors reported in ( 2025 SCCOnline SC 2253), which
dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of an alternative remedy available in
the form of the State Administrative Tribunal. However, in this case, no such
independent tribunal has jurisdiction to look into the grievances of the
petitioners. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner.
41. As a consequence, the interlocutory applications raising the issue of
maintainability also stands dismissed.
42. The next issue pertains to the legality of the impugned order. The
impugned order dated 16.01.2025 is divided into and contains 8 annexures. The
instant batch of writ petitions is in connection with Annexures C, D, E, and F.
Annexures C and D are para-teachers of Naudiah Bazar and Chhatarpur,
33

2026:JHHC:32332
respectively, who had provided the block recommendations available with them
to the respondents. However, these recommendations did not tally with the
records. The respondent therefore considered this to be an absence of the block-
level recommendations itself.
43. Annexures E and F are para-teachers of Naudiah Bazar and
Chhatrapur, respectively, and are such persons who could not provide any
block-level recommendations to the Respondent. The respondents have
terminated their service, as no records pertaining to such recommendations
could be found by them.
44. The primary contention raised by the petitioners in this respect is that
it is not the duty of the petitioners to maintain or keep a record of the block-
level recommendation. Rather, these records is to be maintained by the
respondents themselves. The respondent in a reply to an application filed under
the Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 8.7.2015, has already held that no
such list is available at the block-level office/center (Annexure SA/1). Moreso,
the records obtained from the e-vidyavahini portal and attached as part of the
instant petition show that respondents accepted that approvals were made by
the block-level committee and the petitioners had undergone induction training.
He submits that all the petitioners entered into an agreement, and for more than
16 years, an honorarium was paid to them by the respondents.
45. This Court is of the firm view that in case the records have gone
missing or do not tally with the records submitted by the petitioners, the
petitioners cannot be penalized for the same, especially in light of the fact that
the duty to maintain such records is with the respondents and not the petitioner.
46. As already indicated above that e-vidyavahini portal, which contains
the service details of the petitioners, is admittedly maintained by the
respondents, and no malpractice has been alleged against any of the petitioners
regarding entries of their names and details in the said portal.
47. The lynchpin of this issue rests on who was responsible for
maintenance of the recommendations made by the block-level committee. The
letter dated 26.7.2019 (page 145), issued to the member of the special
committee constituted by the Vidhan Sabha , categorically records an admission
34

2026:JHHC:32332
that the onus to maintain the block-level recommendation is the duty of the
Block Education Officer or the District Superintendent of Education.
48. Even otherwise, the candidate selected by the Aam Sabha had no role
to play in the said recommendation, and as such, they cannot be held
responsible for maintaining documents pertaining to such recommendation.
49. The chart submitted by the petitioner, which is based on the data
obtained from the e-vidyavahini portal, further supplements this fact, beyond
any doubt that verification of block-level recommendations of the petitioner
had taken place had been uploaded/updated on the portal.
50. This Court in the case of Abhay Prasad v. State of Jharkhand
reported in (2005 (1) JCR 167 (Jhr), held that a person, even if initially
appointed on a temporary/contractual basis, who continues to work for 17-18
years, cannot be thrown out on the street only on the basis of conjuncture that
the appointment of the person was illegal. This Court has, in the case of
Shankar Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand (MANU/JH/0013/2010), held that after
prolonged service, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated on the
ground that it was illegal and not done in accordance with law. More recently,
in the case of Arjun Singh v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2017 (2) JLJR
647), this Court has held that prolonged service cannot be terminated on the
ground that documents of which the employer was custodian were not produced
or had gone missing as it is to be presumed that the appointment and continued
service were after proper verification.
51. Once it is established that the duty to maintain the documents
pertaining to block-level recommendation was that of the respondents, and in
the past such verifications were undertaken, it would be illegal to terminate the
services of the petitioner on this ground alone. This Court cannot lose sight of
the fact that the updated data from the e-vidyavahini portal, is a vital document
and has not been considered in the impugned order.
52. The argument of the respondents that illegal appointment cannot be
allowed to continue, especially when block-level recommendation was
mandatory as per the notification of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan as well as the
Assistant Teacher Service Rules, 2021 , is also not tenable in light of the
35

2026:JHHC:32332
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Gaurav Mehla and Ors v. State of Haryana and Ors (2026 SCCOnline SC
1107 ). The Hon'ble Apex Court was examining the appointments of the
appellants (therein), to the post of Clerk-cum-Salesman and Poen-cum-
Chaukidar in Thanesar Co-operating Marketing-cum-Processing Society
Limited, Kurukshetra. The appointments were made in terms of the Primary
Cooperative Marketing Processing Society Limited's Staff Service Rules, 2003,
which contain the mandatory requirement for the recommendation to be made
by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Inspector Cooperative Society,
and District Manager. Such recommendation was absent in the case of the
appellants.
53. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any process of recruitment can
be divided into three categories, i.e, issuance of proper advertisement,
conducting a fair and transparent selection process, and appointment by the
competent authority . A recruitment process would not stand vitiated if it would
not go to the root of the matter, i.e., if proper advertisement was made and a
fair and transparent selection process was carried out.
54. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that proper advertisements
were issued, and pursuant to such advertisement, the names of the petitioners
were recommended by the Aam Sabha. After the recommendation, an
agreement was executed by and between the petitioners and the competent
authority. As such, even if it is admitted that block-level recommendation was
absent, such absence of block-level recommendation would not go to the root
of the matter.
55. Lastly, the argument of the respondents that the petitioners did not
have the requisite eligibility criteria does not hold water as such; persons who
did not possess the requisite qualifications have been put in a separate category
and form part of Annexures G and H of the impugned order. The argument of
the respondents that the petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria at the
time of their appointment is not at all reflected in the impugned order. It is
established law that the respondent cannot substantiate or add reasons to the
impugned order in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. This principle is well
36

2026:JHHC:32332
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohindhr Singh Gill and
Anr v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (1978) 1 SCC 405 . The issue
is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners.
56. In sequitur , the impugned order, is, hereby quashed and set aside and
the Petitioners shall be reinstated in service with immediate effect. From the
record, it would further transpire that even during the pendency of the decision
to be taken by the disciplinary-cum-administrative authority, the petitioners
were restrained from discharging their duties and were not even paid
honorarium/salary. Ultimately, the disciplinary-cum-administrative authority
held that the petitioners were validly appointed, vide orders dated 13.03.2024
and 27.04.2024. Despite this, the petitioners were not allowed to resume their
duties. Thus, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ would not be applicable, in the
given facts and circumstances of the case.
57. In view of the cumulative effects, it is hereby ordered that the
petitioners would be paid the entire salary/honorarium with effect from
13.03.2024 and 27.04.2024, that is the date on which the disciplinary or
administrative authority held in favour of the petitioner, till the date of the
reinstatement. The said people would be treated as continuing in service with
all consequential benefits.
58. The concerned respondent is accordingly directed to issue necessary
order permitting the respective petitioners to rejoin services forthwith, but in
any case, not beyond a period of 4 weeks, from the date of receipt/production
of copy of this order. However, the direction regarding payment of
honorarium/salary for the intervening period and other consequential benefits
so attached shall be complied with within a further period of 8 weeks.
59. The writ petitions accordingly stand allowed. Pending I.As, if any,
also stand closed. Parties to bear their own cost.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated: 04 /11/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded
5.11.2026
37